Blair, I have the pen on this document till the next call so I will see if I can make the text clearer. Responses inline: Blair Dillaway wrote:
Hiro, David:
I read thru the lastest BSP 2.0 draft and had a couple of comments.
Pg 3 – Table 1. It is not clear to me why you are including the OGSA BSP 1.0 namespaces in this doc since it obsoletes that specification. If this was meant to indicate the BSP 1.0 namespace will be re-used for the BSP 2.0 specs it seems to me that would just lead to needless confusion.
I think the 'bsp' entry can be deleted from the table since it is not a namespace; it is a conformance claim URI.
Pg 4, Line 95 – You are defining a new conformance claim for this spec, so why do you also claim it exposes the BSP 1.0 conformance claim?
The main purpose of this profile is to fill the security 'gap' left in the WSRF Basic Profile (GFD.72), section 8. Briefly, the WSRF BP says that it has to be combined with an OGSA Basic Security profile that exposes the generic conformance claim URI http://www.ggf.org/ogsa/2006/05/bsp This is not the BSP 1.0 conformance claim. The BSP 1.0 conformance claim is http://www.ggf.org/ogsa/2006/01/bsp-core. BSP 1.0 exposed both the generic claim as required by WSRF BP and also defined its own conformance claim. BSP 2.0 follows this pattern also. I hope this is clearer, but if it's not we can talk about it on the call.
Of course, you still need to fill in the full references to the two specs this document will apply to which I presume will define the namespaces you will need to reference.
It's on my list of things to do. Thanks. -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd